The GCSB Bill show's what happens in a democracy when people are unhappy with something that is happening, they protest peacefully, submitted forms, televise debates. In a country that has for so many years been under a dictatorship regime and has not learnt this process is there more cause for unrest? In an environment like that the people have no power, the selectorate is very small and the only way to overthrow the ruler is to wait to there is a weakness and then attack. A country that this has been it's education and back ground may be more likely to continue down that road even when presented with a regime that is non democratic.
Is there a predetermined settling in period where unrest is
more likely before a country that once was a dictatorship now becomes a
democracy.
Debbie - the short answer to your question does seem to be yes. Most new democracies fail (most don't live to be 15), but it's not necessarily because they are immature or naive - it's more because creating a democracy means wresting power from insiders and distributing it more widely to outsiders, and that is an inherently conflictive situation. No matter how much many Egyptians want democracy, it's just going to be inherently difficult to reduce the power of the army, which controls enormous military and economic resources.
ReplyDeleteWe see similar situations in other countries that were formerly under dictatorships. The current situation of unrest in Iraq is an example of this. There is a lot of tension in that country, with very little democratic experience due to being ruled by Saddam Hussein for so long.
ReplyDeleteEnsuring that a new government has a democratic conception of policy us also an important factor. Common ground and shared values within the new larger parties will support a realistic and containable conception of democracy. It will be interesting to see how Egypt manages this an how much conflict this manifests
ReplyDeleteDebbie - what do you mean by "a democratic conception of policy"? The current parties in power (as well as the army) don't seem to have any such conception. (They want to exclude the Muslim Brotherhood).
DeleteI think this post promotes an interesting thought. Is a democracy so because the citizens of the state allow it to be one? I think so. Because of this it is important that there has been a long history and foundation of democracy. It must be inherent in a society or there may very well be a risk of collapse. I think these questions would be interesting to look further into.
ReplyDelete(300262759)
Why is a long history important, Bafsinclair? It seems as if you could have a long history of democracy and still have a collapse if there's a lot of polarization in society (e.g., Chile, as we will see).
Delete"The GCSB Bill show's what happens in a democracy when people are unhappy with something that is happening, they protest peacefully, submitted forms, televise debates."
ReplyDeleteAnd still nothing changes. Make as much noise as you want in a so-called democracy so long as you're not heard and even if you are they'll go ahead anyway if the elites think it's important enough. It's not like the government wasn't spying on citizens before the bill; it simply justifies what was already taking place. This has also been happening in the US where they simply make laws to legalise violations of rights under the guise of democracy. Anyone in the know would tell you that it was happening before these bills anyway.
Also, did everyone forget that Egyptians have been protesting for democracy only to be crushed by a military supported by the US? Well here's a novel fact -- the Americans have been busy propping up dictatorships in the middle east for decades. Maybe, just maybe, this has something to do with the failure of democracy, not because savages have failed to develop a democratic consciousness. Moreover, why should I assume that we live in democracies anyway? People are too busy pointing their fingers elsewhere and fail to see that our democracies are rotten to the core.